Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

S2 also opens possibilities like having splinter racks double the strength of poison weapons. That's just guessing though.

If I were to make a bet I'd go with some form of stratagem that boosts the strength of a units poison weapons.

Nice to see dark lances go to d3+3 instead of d6.

Yeah, it's hard to say, for sure the most confusing thing for me is the increase from S1 to S2 for poison....like....why? Unless they're redesigning the way poison works somehow. Poison could be like "Strength is doubled against targets without the VEHICLE keyword" which would make splinter rifles generally slightly worse but make the splinter cannon profile make a bit more sense.

Like S1-S2 literally doesn't do anything at all, even if it's "the strength you use vs vehicles" - it's still the same against every vehicle in the whole game.

Razorflails are likely to be getting something to explain the buff to the 2 best wych weapons. I'd say most likely they become a "Make X attacks for each attack made with this weapon" weapon rather than the current "+D3 bonus attacks" thing.

EDIT: Also if poison works the way it does now Agonizers would basically never make sense over Pswords.

5 on the wych sheet is the hydra gauntlets right? so they are basically power axes now.

 warmaster21 wrote:
5 on the wych sheet is the hydra gauntlets right? so they are basically power axes now.

better, if they keep their current reroll wounds rule.

Maybe poison is now "Weapon strength + d6, results of 6+ wound"

I'm guessing there is a strat that boosts poison weapons strength or some such nonesense.

the_scotsman wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
5 on the wych sheet is the hydra gauntlets right? so they are basically power axes now.

better, if they keep their current reroll wounds rule.

Lets hope

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Nice to see dark lances go to d3+3 instead of d6.

I wouldn't be surprised to see most weapons that need to be anti tank not take this 3 +D3 for damage approach now. Which I'm good with, leave some out there but limiting some use of random is a good thing, IMO of course. I had called this would be what they'd do with lances.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Nice to see dark lances go to d3+3 instead of d6.

I would be surprised to see most weapons that need to be anti tank not take this 3 +D3 for damage approach now. Which I'm good with, leave some out there but limiting some use of random is a good thing, IMO of course. I had called this would be what they'd do with lances.

A Little disappointing when comparing to lascannons now though. If dark lances get D3+3 then really they should as well. The justification being that dark lances aren't necessarily better at causing damage than a lascannon, but they do have better armour penetration, which is represented with the AP-4.

However, I will reserve full judgement until we know their point cost and overall availability.

I don't mind a ravager having 3x dark lances and taking out a vehicle each per turn providing they are costed appropriately and a ravager is still a glass cannon.

The costs are likely the ones we already have, so a triple lance ravager is 140.

Spoletta wrote:
The costs are likely the ones we already have, so a triple lance ravager is 140.

Of course, I forgot about the field manual.

140pts isn't bad for a fairly flimsy unit they are mounted upon, they will undoubtably be super efficient if they get first turn though at that price if the opponent deploys aggressively.

I think if you have an armour heavy army, you deploy assuming you aren't getting first turn and try and keep as much out of LOS as possible, considering angles the Drukhari player could take to get in LOS.

EDIT: I've discussed dark lances compared to lascannons, totally forgetting that lascannons are in fact S9 and not 8 like dark lance. I still think lascannons should have some form of damage buff though, if not D3+3, a built in damage re-roll or something.

The main stat changes for DEldar so far gives me hope for an improved stat line for some of the Craftworld Eldar units.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Nice to see dark lances go to d3+3 instead of d6.

I would be surprised to see most weapons that need to be anti tank not take this 3 +D3 for damage approach now. Which I'm good with, leave some out there but limiting some use of random is a good thing, IMO of course. I had called this would be what they'd do with lances.

A Little disappointing when comparing to lascannons now though. If dark lances get D3+3 then really they should as well. The justification being that dark lances aren't necessarily better at causing damage than a lascannon, but they do have better armour penetration, which is represented with the AP-4.

However, I will reserve full judgement until we know their point cost and overall availability.

I don't mind a ravager having 3x dark lances and taking out a vehicle each per turn providing they are costed appropriately and a ravager is still a glass cannon.

I won't lie, I was thinking that same thing in relation to lascannons. However, they could always find the sweet spot price wise for Lascannons to allow for that high variance in damage. Leaving the potent AT to melta type weapons or certain high end AT uses, like that heavy laser on the primaris tank, or say a vanquisher cannon for guard, etc.

So Lascannons could be more spammy, but less reliable for that heavy damage per shot, and some other high end AT weapons could be more potent per shot, but cost more and have less of them around as a result. I'm not sure how it will work out but if the cost per potency is done well could feel alright in the end.

tbh I'm ok with ONE piece of supposedly superior xenos technology actually being markedly better than the supposedly mass produced antitank weaponry used by countless trillions in the imperial guard.

.....but who am I kidding they'll probably FAQ lascannons to be 3+D3 without adjusting any of the point costs at some point.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The costs are likely the ones we already have, so a triple lance ravager is 140.

Of course, I forgot about the field manual.

140pts isn't bad for a fairly flimsy unit they are mounted upon, they will undoubtably be super efficient if they get first turn though at that price if the opponent deploys aggressively.

I think if you have an armour heavy army, you deploy assuming you aren't getting first turn and try and keep as much out of LOS as possible, considering angles the Drukhari player could take to get in LOS.

EDIT: I've discussed dark lances compared to lascannons, totally forgetting that lascannons are in fact S9 and not 8 like dark lance. I still think lascannons should have some form of damage buff though, if not D3+3, a built in damage re-roll or something.

The problem people keep making with this argument is that if you don't want to spam Lascannons in any of the factions that can take them then you have a massive amount of variety to go with instead, like say Multi-Melta's with their D6+2 (+4 in half range) which is even more reliable for damage output. Drukhari have nothing else readily available for dedicated anti tank besides the Dark Lance, keeping the Dark Lance at D6 damage for the silly reason that Lascannons are D6 (despite them also being S9 and 12" longer range) unnecesarrily gimps Drukhari.

I'm not leaping up and down on the Lance Ravager.

I'm not totally sure the curves work out this way - but an average of 5 damage is only a 42% increase on 3.5 damage. But you could stack 36% more damage with reroll 1s to hit and wound so if those rerolls are removed (thanks Core) its potentially a bit of a wash. (If they aren't, or the Ravager gets something baseline then its different, but... we'll see.)

Probably reasonable on anything without an invul - but they are so common these days.

It's a bit frustrating seeing people constantly compare the DL to a las canon when a multimelta is WAY more comparable.

a dark lance and a multi melta are each s8 ap-4 with a damage buff. The MM has less range and is heavy but also has twice the shots.

I also full heartily disagree with this notion that going forward apparently all AT weapons should have a set minimum damage. That just makes vehicles edge closer and closer to having hull-points again guys. The entire point in variance is to increase the survive-ability of tanks.

Space marines already get litanies and re-rolls galore on an army that is somehow 90% core. They don't need to be MORE consistent.

Guard have 3:1 ratios on guns compared to everyone else, that's their constancy. I think it's kind of fitting that xenos with superior tech get the consistency.

I mean. holy crap, drukhari finally get a much needed buff and already there are marine players opining that the very same buff should apply to them...

Tyel wrote:
I'm not leaping up and down on the Lance Ravager.

I'm not totally sure the curves work out this way - but an average of 5 damage is only a 42% increase on 3.5 damage. But you could stack 36% more damage with reroll 1s to hit and wound so if those rerolls are removed (thanks Core) its potentially a bit of a wash. (If they aren't, or the Ravager gets something baseline then its different, but... we'll see.)

Probably reasonable on anything without an invul - but they are so common these days.

The real difference comes in the reliability, nothing felt worse than finally getting a DL shot through only to roll a 1 on the damage and effectively do sod all. The change in the averages might not be huge but it's the lack of feels bad variance that makes things better.

 Red Corsair wrote:
It's a bit frustrating seeing people constantly compare the DL to a las canon when a multimelta is WAY more comparable.

a dark lance and a multi melta are each s8 ap-4 with a damage buff. The MM has less range and is heavy but also has twice the shots.

Lances don't have a 'damage buff.'
People compare them to lascannons because that's what they are, just lower strength, better AP. Once upon a time they were better than lascannons against AV 14, but worse against AV12.

 Imateria wrote:
The real difference comes in the reliability, nothing felt worse than finally getting a DL shot through only to roll a 1 on the damage and effectively do sod all. The change in the averages might not be huge but it's the lack of feels bad variance that makes things better.

Certainly true. I'm just not sure that's going to be enough.

Its not totally fair perhaps to pick on the best targets - but right now you get about 5 MM attack bikes for 2 Lance ravagers. That's 10 shots to 6 - and if in 12" (hardly impossible with 14" move) those 10 do more damage. Attack Bikes are Core for unclear reasons so you can engineer rerolls and other buffs if necessary (although probably hard to also get within 12" early game unless choice targets are screaming straight at you). The Ravagers are a bit tougher due to T6 and 5++ - but then dead bikes/versus wounds carrying over and degrading profiles make things a bit complicated.

Basically without additional special rules it feels like you are going to have to get an awful lot out of the soft stats of having 36" range and fly to make Ravagers really good.

I mean it could be worse - look at the Heavy Lokhust for instance.

Voss wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
It's a bit frustrating seeing people constantly compare the DL to a las canon when a multimelta is WAY more comparable.

a dark lance and a multi melta are each s8 ap-4 with a damage buff. The MM has less range and is heavy but also has twice the shots.

Lances don't have a 'damage buff.'
People compare them to lascannons because that's what they are, just lower strength, better AP. Once upon a time they were better than lascannons against AV 14, but worse against AV12.

Maybe you missed it, but they have a damage buff now. That's what I am referring to.

Voss wrote:
".... just lower strength, better AP."

So literally not the same. Right, exactly, try to keep up

Yes, ignoring the triple range for full effect on the dark lances versus multi-meltas and durability of the platforms and you would find that multi meltas are better.

Ignoring that it isn’t hard to zone out 12 inches with units, ignoring the fly keyword as well, and giving the attack bike the benefits of all its special rules while assuming the raiders get none is par for the course in a fair comparison.

I would 100% take 2 ravages over 5 attack bikes. Guaranteed damage at range is better than situational damage up close.

 Leth wrote:
Yes, ignoring the triple range for full effect on the dark lances versus multi-meltas and durability of the platforms and you would find that multi meltas are better.

Ignoring that it isn’t hard to zone out 12 inches with units, ignoring the fly keyword as well, and giving the attack bike the benefits of all its special rules while assuming the raiders get none is par for the course in a fair comparison.

I would 100% take 2 ravages over 5 attack bikes. Guaranteed damage at range is better than situational damage up close.

And as much as I hate the new Splinter Cannon, those attack bikes would be the perfect target for them.

Dark eldar have been a combination of Lang range shooting and in your face CC. They have never really been masters of the mid range in my experience and these changes seem to be playing into that.

A lot is going to be down to how the special rules interact, but I think it would be really good to see if all of the different play styles are viable in the new book.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
It's a bit frustrating seeing people constantly compare the DL to a las canon when a multimelta is WAY more comparable.

a dark lance and a multi melta are each s8 ap-4 with a damage buff. The MM has less range and is heavy but also has twice the shots.

Lances don't have a 'damage buff.'
People compare them to lascannons because that's what they are, just lower strength, better AP. Once upon a time they were better than lascannons against AV 14, but worse against AV12.

Maybe you missed it, but they have a damage buff now. That's what I am referring to.

Voss wrote:
".... just lower strength, better AP."

So literally not the same. Right, exactly, try to keep up

That makes even less sense. The shorter range, close range adjustment AND 2 shots of the multimelta makes it even more 'literally not the same' than a lascannon.

Voss wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
It's a bit frustrating seeing people constantly compare the DL to a las canon when a multimelta is WAY more comparable.

a dark lance and a multi melta are each s8 ap-4 with a damage buff. The MM has less range and is heavy but also has twice the shots.

Lances don't have a 'damage buff.'
People compare them to lascannons because that's what they are, just lower strength, better AP. Once upon a time they were better than lascannons against AV 14, but worse against AV12.

Maybe you missed it, but they have a damage buff now. That's what I am referring to.

Voss wrote:
".... just lower strength, better AP."

So literally not the same. Right, exactly, try to keep up

That makes even less sense. The shorter range, close range adjustment AND 2 shots of the multimelta makes it even more 'literally not the same' than a lascannon.

It was your argument to begin with lol. I was saying comparisons were silly. But sure move the goal post.

At 24", a Multi Melta does 40% more damage than a Dark Lance.
This raises to 120% at 12".

Obviously the Dark Lance is superior at ranges where the Multi Melta cannot fire... But 24" isn't that hard a range band to be in.

Now, I'm okay with a Multi Melta being better than a Dark Lance, provided the costs are okay. They're not directly competing with one another on the same unit, they're different guns in different armies.

We don’t roll enough dice in any given game for averages to matter. Also you can’t just use the average when comparing variable to more fixed damage weapons.

When all is said and done I would rather have guaranteed damage over variable damage, especially with all the 3-4 wound models out there. Specially with dark eldar who want to be far away